America’s state legislatures have
changed considerably in the last several decades.Nowhere is that more evident than in the mix of individuals who
serve as lawmakers.In recent years
there has been a substantial increase in the rate at which women and ethnic and
racial minorities serve in what have historically been white male bastions.In the case of African-Americans, those
increases have been particularly dramatic.Just three decades ago, fewer than 200 blacks served in their state
legislatures.By the year 2000, the
number of black legislators had tripled.The increases in black representation have been particularly dramatic in
the South.In 1969, only 32 blacks
served in the legislatures of the eleven states of the Confederacy.By 1993, the number of blacks serving in
those states had grown to 260, an eight-fold increase.

As
the 20th century drew to a close, there was good reason to believe
that the character of black legislative life in the American states was
undergoing fundamental change.Research from a number of quarters suggests that by the early 1990s
black representation had entered an era
of consolidation, as black office holders serving in record numbers sought
to achieve, with some success, power and influence within their respective
chambers.Yet by mid-decade political
and legal developments, most notably the creation of minority-access-districts
and the "Republicanization" of state legislatures following the 1994
elections threatened to offset earlier political gains and to move black
legislators into an era of reassessment.For many, the increasing use of
minority-access-districts to elect black lawmakers has created an uneasy
tension between descriptive and substantive representation.In a parallel fashion, Republican victories
(and increased partisan competition elsewhere) make black office-holding more problematic
by placing black Democrats within the legislative minority, promoting a more
conservative policy agenda, and, in some cases, prompting white Democrats to
move toward the political center and away from historically black political and
policy interests.Faced with a new set
of political challenges, African-American lawmakers frequently find themselves
rethinking political strategies and making difficult political choices in order
to achieve political influence and represent their constituents.

Our paper attempts to elaborate
these themes by looking at the evolution of black legislative life over the
last two decades.In doing that, we
draw upon the available literature and our own preliminary attempts to assess
the current state of black legislative affairs. We begin by describing the
character of black representation in the late eighties-early nineties.We then discuss what we believe are two
crucial political developments – the use of minority-access-districts and the
“Republicanization” of the states’ legislatures that have moved many black
lawmakers to an era of reassessment.

Consolidating
Black Gains

As African-Americans move into their state
legislatures in record numbers, the question for black lawmakers and scholars
alike is whether increases in the rate of descriptive representation will
produce tangible benefits (i.e. substantive representation) for
African-Americans. Most analysts agree that simply “being there” is not
enough.For lawmakers (and those who
study them) effectively representing black interests requires contending with
what Davidson and Grofman (1994: 14) refer to as “third generation issues, ”
concerning

“…the
extent to which minority elected officials become an integral part of the
political process.”In operational
terms, effective substantive representation requires what Brown, Marshall and
Tabb (1984) label “political incorporation,” the movement of blacks into
positions of power and authority and the ability of minority lawmakers to
insert themselves into winning coalitions.

Research from a number of quarters,
the bulk of which reference the late 1980s and early 1990s, suggests that black
lawmakers have achieved some power and influence within their respective
chambers, but only up to a point.Studies have found, for example that a sizable number of black lawmakers
serve on key committees, as committee chairs, and within their party
leadership.Nearly 60 percent of those
legislators surveyed in 1991 by Button and Hedge (1996) reported serving as a
committee chair (30 percent) or party leader (28 percent).Similarly, Haynie (2001) found that
significant numbers of black lawmakers served on the so-called prestige
committee in the lower houses in Illinois (18 percent) Maryland (22 percent)
New Jersey (33 percent) and North Carolina (24 percent) in the late 1980s.Haynie’s analysis of black political
incorporation in those states and Arkansas is especially revealing concerning
the extent to which black lawmakers have found a meaningful niche within their
legislative chamber.Haynie created an
index of black incorporation for each of the states for 1969, 1979, and
1989.The index reflected the number of
blacks serving in the legislature, their percentage in the Democratic Party (if
Democrats were the majority), black seniority levels, and the number of blacks
serving as party leaders, as committee chairs, and on prestige committees.In each of the five states, Haynie
discovered a dramatic increase in black political incorporation over the
twenty-year period.

Those findings aside, the available evidence
also suggests limits on the extent to which blacks have been incorporated into
their state legislatures.Button and
Hedge report a fair amount of disillusionment among black lawmakers with both
the party and committee systems.Nearly
twice as many lawmakers reported that they had only a little influence over
their party’s affairs than did those reporting a great deal of influence.Similarly, sizable numbers reported at least
some discrimination in party affairs (76 percent) and the committee system (61
percent).Orey’s (2000) analysis of
committee chairmanships in 42 states in 1993-94 indicates that blacks were much
less likely than whites to serve as committee chairs.During that two-year period, African-Americans chaired only 97 of
the states’ 1,990 standing house and senate committees. Blacks were
particularly underrepresented on prestige committees (fiscal and rules
committees). Interestingly enough, the probability that blacks would chair a
committee was higher in the South.

Hedge, Button and Spear’s (1996) and
Haynie’s analyses underscore the notion that institutional position
matters.Hedge, Button, and Spear
report that more senior members and committee chairs were more likely to
believe that they were able to influence their party’s decisions while black
committee chairs were more likely to report greater overall black influence
within their chamber.In a parallel
fashion, Haynie discovers that increases in black political incorporation
produced increases in state spending for health, education, and welfare
programs even after controls for the states’ poverty rates and fiscal capacity.
[i]

There is also evidence to suggest that black
lawmakers bring a distinct policy agenda to their respective chambers.Bratton and Haynie’s (1999) analysis of bill
introduction in six states in 1979 and 1989 indicates that black lawmakers are
more likely to introduce legislation focusing on black and women’s interests,
education, and welfare policy than are their white counterparts

The question that remains, of
course, is whether blacks have been able to win passage of their legislative
priorities.Here the evidence is less
promising.Case studies from this
period reveal that blacks are consistently less likely to pass legislation than
their white counterparts.Table 1
summarizes the findings from case studies of bill passage in five southern
states in the late1980s.As the data
reveal, with the notable exception of the North Carolina, black lawmakers were
less successful in passing legislation than whites.Those differences were particularly substantial in Mississippi
and South Carolina, where white lawmakers were three times more likely than
blacks to pass legislation.Bratton and
Haynie (1999) report similar findings in their multivariate analysis of bill
passage. In three of the six states included in their analysis, Arkansas,
California and Illinois, increases in black sponsorship yielded lower rates of
bill passage.

It
is difficult to account for racial differences in bill passage in the American
states, but we suspect that a number of forces are operating.Some of the differences probably reflect the
nature of legislation introduced by blacks, legislation that is often too
liberal for their legislative colleagues.And, as we have seen, differences in bill passage often reflect
differences in the rate at which blacks and whites serve in positions of power
and authority.But, we also suspect
that some of the differences reflect both overt and subtle racism and
discrimination.As one black member from
Mississippi confided in a telephone interview in the early nineties, it was
often enough to simply identify a bill as a “nigger bill” to ensure defeat in
his state’s legislature.

-- Table One -

Challenges

Despite the limits we have noted, it is fair
to say that African-American legislators have made substantial progress over
the last several decades.However,
events in the mid-nineties threaten to offset some of those gains and, at a
minimum, force many black lawmakers to reconsider their

political
and legislative strategies.One such
development is the creation of majority-minority districts. As the reader
knows, increases in the number of black legislators in the early nineties were
primarily the result of pressures from the Department of Justice to create
legislative districts that ensured blacks would win office.Given patterns of racial voting the solution
was simple – create legislative districts with a majority of black voters.Many states did so with a vengeance. The
results are dramatic.Following
redistricting in the 1990s, the number of blacks serving in their state
legislatures increased from 416 in 1990 to 523 by 1993 and nearly 600 by the
end of the decade (Bullock, 2001).

Those districts have been challenged
on a number of grounds.Some whites
maintain that black majority districts represent a form of reverse
discrimination and violate the equal protection clause.Others submit that majority minority
districts actually disadvantage blacks.Many contend, for example, that pulling black voters out of surrounding
Democratic districts and packing them in new majority-minority districts
reduces the overall influence of blacks by reducing the amount of aggregate
support for black interests within the legislature.As black Democrats are pulled out of surrounding districts, those
“bleached” districts potentially fall into Republican hands. Even where those
districts remain Democratic, members have less incentive to respond to minority
interests as the number of black voters dwindle within the old district.In either case, there is a net loss in the
number of legislators willing to support legislation advantaging black voters.
In addition, Guiner (1994) fears that the creation of minority districts will
further add to white resentment toward black legislators, particularly where
there is a sense that black gains came at the party’s expense.Others maintain that there is simply no
need to create minority districts.Swain (1995) maintains, for example, that blacks are increasingly capable
of winning seats in white majority districts.Swain also contends that white lawmakers can represent black
interests.Lublin (1997) makes a
similar point by arguing that the interest of black citizens can be achieved in
“black influence” districts, i.e. districts with a sizable number but not a
majority of black voters.

How the issue of minority districts
has played out at the state level is difficult to determine.Much of the research on the impact of
majority-minority districts looks at the U.S. Congress (see, most notably
Swain, 1995; Lublin 1997; and Whitby 1997) despite the fact that most majority
minority districts were created at the state level.Nonetheless, what evidence is available suggests that those
districts have been a mixed blessing for black state legislators.As we have seen, the creation of
majority-minority districts during the 1990s redistricting dramatically
increased the number of black lawmakers, particularly in the South.Bullock’s (1992) analysis of black office
holding in the 1980s demonstrates just how important minority districts have
been.According to his analysis,
throughout the 1980s no black legislator was elected in the states of Arkansas,
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina from a district that was
less than 50 percent black. Elsewhere, the “tipping point” necessary to elect
black legislators was 30-40 percent black.

The impact of minority districts on
substantive representation is less clear.On the one hand, Bratton and Haynie’s research on agenda setting
underscores the importance of black lawmakers for representing black
interests.Black lawmakers bring a
unique set of policy preferences to their legislatures and, as a result,
increase the likelihood that issues of importance to blacks will be placed on
the agenda.

On the other hand, the creation of
black districts has probably further isolated blacks from white Democrats in
the South.In the first instance, the
process of creating those districts in the early 1990s produced strange alliances.During that period, blacks frequently found
themselves pitted against their Democratic colleagues and aligned with
Republicans in lawsuits filed by Democrats that challenged the use of minority
districts.Republican support was
blatantly partisan. Creating black
districts essentially wasted Democratic votes by packing them in the new
districts and made it easier for Republicans to capture surrounding
districts.Another way that minority
districts contribute to tensions among black and white lawmakers is by making
their districts even more distinct in terms of the kinds of constituents and
interests they represent.Hedge,
Button, and Spear’s analysis of black lawmakers in the early nineties
illustrates the difficulties representatives of black majority districts face.
Members serving majority-minority districts reported less influence in party
affairs, were less satisfied with their committee assignments, and were more
likely to report that blacks have little influence in their legislature’s affairs.

Those lessons have apparently not
been lost on black lawmakers as they have addressed the latest round of
redistricting.In at least some
instances, blacks have worked with white Democrats to create minority districts
with fewer black voters, so that Democrats in surrounding districts will have a
better chance of retaining or recapturing those seats. In New Jersey, minority
legislators joined with Democratic officials to “unpack” heavily black
districts around Newark, a strategy that some believe resulted in Democrats
capturing the state assembly for the first time a decade.Similar attempts have been made elsewhere,
including Georgia and Mississippi but with less success in the latter state
(Cohen, New York Times, Sunday, March
24, 2002).

A second major development in the
mid-nineties and one we believe also has major implications for the quality of
black life is what we have labeled the “Republicanization” of state
legislatures.The historic Republican
victories in the U.S. Congress in 1994 were matched in many state
legislatures.In 1990 Democrats
controlled 73 of the 98 partisan legislative chambers.Following the 1994 elections that number
had dropped to just 48.Republican
gains have been particularly notable in the South.Currently, Republicans control both houses in Florida, South
Carolina, and Virginia, the Texas Senate, and are within striking distance in
the Texas and North Carolina Assemblies and the Tennessee Senate.

Again we know little about the impact of
partisan changes on the quality of black legislative life and the ability of
black lawmakers to represent minority interests. Some tentative conclusions are
warranted however.First, it seems
reasonably clear that many blacks have lost what positions of power and
authority they might have had prior to Republican control.In 1992, 91 percent of black lawmakers were
members of their chamber’s majority party.By the end of the decade that percentage had dropped to 68 percent.More telling is a comparison of the rate at
which blacks hold positions of authority within their legislatures over the
last two decades.As the data in Tables
2 and 3 reveal, the number of blacks serving as party leaders or committee
chairs rose sharply between 1984 and1991 only to decline somewhat between 1991
and 1999 (outside of the South).The
data from the South demonstrate, however, that changes in the rate at which
blacks hold influence in their legislatures is more variable than the national
findings would suggest.In four states
– Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Tennessee – black lawmakers lost positions
of power over the decade.Elsewhere,
most notably Alabama and North Carolina, blacks actually held substantially
more chairmanships by the end of the nineties.

-- Tables Two and Three --

Second, the changing political and
policy climate of the states has led many blacks (and white) to reassess their
role within the Democratic Party and their support for recent conservative
policy initiatives. Florida’s black lawmakers have done just that for the last
several years. The Republican capture of
the state legislature in the middle part of the decade challenged the state’s
black legislative delegation to rethink their place within the Democratic Party
and their relationship with Florida Republicans.The opportunity to do so came quickly.In January 1998, House Democrats ousted House speaker-designate
Representative Willie Logan, an African-American from Dade County and replaced
him with white representative Ann Mackenzie.Although House Democrats maintained that replacing Logan reflected not
race, but his limits as a fund-raiser and leader in the conservative chamber,
members of the black caucus charged otherwise.Black representative Cynthia Chestnut(D. Gainesville) labeled the ouster “blatant racism”(St. Louis Post Dispatch, January 25, 1988, p. 5B) and warned:

“We’re having a divorce in the family.The black family member has been taken for
granted. And when you have a member of the family who has been taken for
granted, you are likely to lose that family member.I think African-Americans across this state will need to reassess
where they are today.” (St. Petersburg Times, January 14,
1998, p. A10).

For many within the caucus, Logan’s ouster freed black
legislators from any obligation to support their fellow Democrats.Logan would subsequently endorse Republican
gubernatorial candidate Jeb Bush in the 1998 election and would run as an
independent for the U.S. Senate in 2000.St. Petersburg representative Rudy Bradley simply switched parties.More typically, black legislators chose to
remain within the Democratic Party but showed an increased willingness to cross
the aisle.For their part, Republican
leaders were quick to take advantage of schisms within

the Democratic ranks by offering black legislators
increased staff, policy influence and legislative pork in return for their
support.

Any
hopes Republicans leaders might have had of gaining black support were no doubt
dashed as a result of subsequent political developments – Jeb Bush’s One
Florida plan to end affirmative action and the 2000 presidential election.Shortly after the governor issued an
executive order banning the use of race as a factor in university admissions,
two black legislators, Rep. Kendrick Meek of Miami and Sen. Anthony Hill of
Jacksonville, staged a sit-in in the governor’s office.And, of course, Republican efforts to
prevent a recount and redress of the 2000 presidential vote in Florida were
viewed by many in the black community as a partisan attempt to dilute the black
vote.

The
experiences of black legislators in Wisconsin reveal similar dilemmas and
choices.Over the past two decades,
Wisconsin has been a leader in welfare and education reform.In some cases, members like Milwaukee black
representatives Polly Williams and Antonia Riley have bought into Republican
efforts.Representative Williams has
supported Milwaukee’s innovative voucher program from the very beginning
despite the criticism of others within the caucus.Representative Riley is actually credited with offering
legislation that would eventually become foundation of the state’s work-based
welfare initiative.Others, most
notably state senator QwendolynneMoore,
have been staunch opponents of each of those programs.For many blacks in Wisconsin and elsewhere
the issue frequently comes down to whether white officials can be trusted.In spring of 1998, then Governor Tommy
Thompson proposed a state takeover of the Milwaukee schools, ostensibly because
the Milwaukee school board had not given him what he wanted on the school
voucher program.During a hastily
called meeting between representatives from the Governor’s office and local
political and school officials, one black lawmaker turned and asked….”can I
trust these people?”

While the
Republican victories in the last few years have made political life more
difficult for many blacks, King-Meadows and Schaller (1999) usefully remind us
that recent partisan developments also hold out opportunities for black
influence.As those authors note:

…as
state legislatures become more two-party competitive, the ability of black
legislative caucuses to exercise decisive, coalition-building power may
actually increase because black legislators are more likely to serve as the
swing voting bloc. (p. 2)

Conclusions

A
cursory look at the evolution of black lawmakers over the last three decades
provide support for our notion that the character of black legislative life has
undergone fundamental change in the last several years.As the political and legal environment
within which blacks must run and serve has changed, so too has the quality of
black legislative life. The most visible changes have been in terms of the
loss, by blacks, of majority party status and positions of institutional
authority.We also suspect that changes
in the mid-nineties created tensions among black and white Democratic lawmakers
and forced each to reconsider the role black lawmakers play within the party
and the legislature.At the same time,
the creation of new, black majority districts and the increase in interparty
competition represent potential opportunities for blacks to form new alliances
and to exercise political influence as increasingly sizable voting blocs.

Our review of black representation over the last decade also
points to the need for more, and more recent, research.As we note earlier, much of the research on
the quality of black legislative life focuses on the late 1980s and early
1990s.As insightful as those studies
are, recent developments suggest the need to revisit the questions they
addressed.Moreover, other changes are
likely to impact on black legislative life, including demographic changes in
states like Florida, Texas, and California and the term limits that have been
enacted in nearly half the American states.

1 Parenthetically, Nelson
(1991) found few positive relationships between his measure of potential black
influence and public policy outputs during the mid-eighties.Indeed, he discovers an inverse relationship
between potential influence and state spending on education and social
services.